Skip to main content

View Diary: Hey, Reince, that's not how presidential elections work (140 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There are worse things than President Hillary... (5+ / 0-)

    ...such as, a President Christie or President Paul or President Huckabee or President Santorum or President [insert any potential GOP alternative].

    In the democratic primaries, go ahead and support whomever is on the ballot that you prefer.  Heck, go the write-in route if they aren't on the ballot.

    But once the nomination is decided, IF the nominee is indeed Hillary Clinton, it's time to consider that the only realistic outcome other than Clinton winning the Presidency is for the GOP nominee to win the Presidency, and what the  comparative consequences would be for the latter vs the former outcome.  We have an excellent, and recent historical example to consider - Bush v Gore v Nader in 2000.  Let's concede for argument that Gore's own mistakes as a candidate and the blundering of the democratic-controlled Monroe County board of elections in their ballot design were at least or more so decisive in his narrow defeat than the choice of 100k Florida progressive-minded voters to cast ballots for Nader instead of Gore, and that with a better campaign he should have been able to defeat Bush despite Nader's presence on the ballot.  Let's take that distraction off the table.  EVEN SO, what did your vote for the more progressively pure general election candidate over the establishment-compromised democratic party candidate get you?  Bush as President for eight years, with the vast array of damage he did to the policies, the courts, the financial condition of the government...and so on (long list).  Yes, we all understand the counter-argument that unless we support better progressives with our votes over supposedly more pragmatic impure, more establishment candidates we'll never get the true progressive change the country needs, and which you believe the country would support if it had the choice.  However, the example of 2000 also shows that this is a high-risk choice if you don't actually win elections, and bitter enemies of progressive reform win instead who are hell-bent on not merely blocking progressive change, but on destroying existing progressive achievements all the way back to the foundation of the New Deal and salting the earth (e.g. upcoming Supreme Court nomineees, for just one f'rinstance) to make it virtually impossible for a long time to come to ever ressurect even what we had and took for granted.

    Purity ponies don't come for free.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site